The debates would be better if we shunned interviews with candidate acolytes and scoffed at polls that pretend to discover a 'winner.'

The debate experience would be even better for viewers if post-debate reporting shunned interviews with candidate acolytes and scoffed at methodologically suspect polls that pretend to discover a debate’s “winner." Like sports-saturated talk of “expectations” and “decisive moments,” such distractions activate cynicism, depress learning and equip viewers to serve as pundits not informed voters.

Instead of scrutinizing candidates’ statements for their probable electoral intent, after a debate journalists should ask what we’ve learned about how each nominee would govern. History reminds us that presidents do try to keep most of their campaign promises. In service of securing the tie between campaigning and governing, the moderator should insist that terms like “middle class,” “the wealthy” or “small business” be defined. Reporters should also make sure that candidates are called out for misleading claims. And if campaign operatives do elbow their way into camera range, they should be asked the questions their favored candidate ducked.

Although debates rarely shift enough votes to alter an election’s outcome, they have a proven capacity to educate the electorate. If after they are over, we can say that journalism facilitated that process, the country (and undecided voters) will have been well served.